This is the 2nd post in a series in which we are addressing Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality, & the ideological framework that these ideas support & promote. The ideas posed & presented in the book, White Fragility, are an extension of this worldview.
In 2018, Robin Diangelo finally assembled & published the thoughts & ideologies behind the phrase she had coined just a few years earlier, White Fragility. While the book was moderately successful at first, the resurgence of racial tension in America following George Floyd’s death sent the popularity of the book through the roof. Not only has the book’s influence grown, the ideas within have taken a foothold with many Christians, churches, & even denominations. (The United Methodist Church even has a video series led by Diangelo on White Fragility.) As a pastor, having many people within our church asking about the book, being told they should read the book, or having already read the book, I have felt a great need to address the ideas, implications, & substance of what is presented within its pages.
Before I go any further, I feel I need to add some caveats, asterisks, & prefaces to what I'm about to say. In the midst of this cancel culture we live in - where you completely write someone off & consider everything they say & think as discredited or untrustworthy because you disagree with them on a single point or issue - I am not writing Diangelo off, suggesting that nothing she has to say is worth consideration. There are some points & issues she raises that are definitely worth discussing & working to reconcile. However, as you'll read moving forward, I don't find many. And the overall foundation of her work crumbles beneath those singular issues. With that said, here we go.
I want to begin by being straightforward: I read a lot. And over the last few years, I have made concerted efforts to read varying viewpoints, dissenters, authors, & ideas that I know challenge or even oppose what I think or believe. I’ve even changed my mind every now & then (maybe). Here’s the straightforward part: I could barely make it through this book. I felt like I was trying to row a boat with holes in it the size of footballs. I really wanted to row, but I was so distracted by the water coming in the holes that I couldn’t seem to get anywhere. In that vein, Danny Slavich entitled his review & critique of White Fragility (on Christianity Today's website) “Eat the Meat; Spit Out the Bones.” To be honest, I felt like every time I began chewing on what I thought was meat, it turned out to be grissel. But I kept chewing & swallowing. Here’s what I digested.
As Diangelo spent years leading diversity training & teaching at the university level, she argues that she saw a consistent response on the part of white people becoming defensive toward the topic of racism. This led her to establish the belief that this defense mechanism has been inherently woven into the fabric of “whiteness” (her term, not mine). She begins the book by asserting that there are 2 overarching ideologies that foster racism within white people: Individuality & Objectivity. Here is some of what she has to say:
"Individualism is a story line that creates, communicates, reproduces, and reinforces the concept that each of us is a unique individual and that our group memberships, such as race, class, or gender, are irrelevant to our opportunities." (p.10)
"We are taught to think about racism only as discrete acts committed by individual people, rather than as a complex, interconnected system." (p.3)
“For many white people, the mere title of this book will cause resistance because I am breaking a cardinal rule of individualism—I am generalizing.” (p.11)
"Objectivity tells us that it is possible to be free of all bias. These ideologies make it very difficult for white people to explore the collective aspects of the white experience." (p.9)
First off, individuality does not imply that our relationship to (or) the influence of our race, class or gender are irrelevant. It means that, within that context, I am aware that God has created me to be a unique individual. (Psalm 139 speaks nothing of race, class, gender, or nationality.)
Along these same lines, objectivity does not tell us that it's possible to be "free of all bias." To be objective is to be aware of your biases & to be able to look past them to a degree.
Finally, this supposed idea of the "white experience" (not just here but throughout the book) implies that every white person has the same experience. This, of course, is ridiculous, considering the comparison of a white man raised in poverty in the Appalachain Mountains of West Virginia with a white woman brought up in wealth & privilege in Manhattan or Chicago. These 2 individuals are almost from 2 completely different planets. His white experience will potentially look nothing like her white experience.
From Chapter 1 on, there are presuppositions being laid down & argued that don't hold water. So as I said, the foundation is already crumbling. The boat's already sinking.
As the book unfolds, what Diangelo is arguing & submitting is that each of us, as white people, are born into a system that - having nothing to do with our own individual circumstances, but because we are white - affords us opportunities, while also passing down an inherent ignorance to the system itself. She asserts that the only way for me to correct this is to take time to objectively determine (after already arguing that we really have no objectivity) where, when, & how the system has benefitted me (&) where my ignorance is rooted so that I can go back & (essentially) repent. [In present-day language, I need to be woke.] For instance, if I'm ignorant to my own racism because I don't know enough about racism, then I need to educate myself. If I'm completely oblivious to my racism because I don't have very many black friends, then I need to have more black friends. And so on.
In regards to that last assertion, can you think of a scenario that more feeds the idea of having a "token" black friend than this one? Or that should be more insulting to a black person? I can't. And an enormous number of black people seem to share that thought.
George Yancey (an author & professor at Baylor University who happens to be black) said in his article Not White Fragility - Mutual Responsibility on The Gospel Coalition website: "As an African American who has not only done academic work on these issues but had to navigate the issues of racism personally, I recognize the irony of reviewing a book by a white woman. But as a professor in the social sciences, I believe she provides little empirical work to support her assertions. The work on implicit bias is questionable at best. Implicit bias may be real, but it doesn’t seem a major factor in why people discriminate against others. Another empirical problem is her lack of research for the unique defensiveness of white people. Where’s the cross-racial research indicating fragility is unique to them?
How can we test for white fragility? As far as I can tell, the only way a white person can’t be “fragile” is if they agree with the accusations brought against them. Any reaction other than compliance is taken as evidence of white fragility. This is not useful as a conceptual tool for hypothesis-testing.
What about the empirical results of anti-racism techniques? The type of diversity training that emerges from such efforts has been shown to have little long-term effect on prejudice. Further, focusing on privilege can actually decrease sympathy for poor white people while not raising the overall sympathy for black people. Research seems to indicate that taking the route of DiAngelo is not lessening our racial hostility—but it may be making that hostility worse.
The concept of white fragility is an academic way to tell white people to be quiet and listen. Bottling up the expressions of white people, though, is not the path to addressing our society’s racial alienation. Indeed, it’s a path that will continue to frustrate attempts at correcting racism’s genuine effects." (italics mine)
John McWhorter (Professor at Columbia University, contributing writer at The Atlantic, who also happens to be black) reviewed Diangelo’s book in an article The Dehumanizing Condescension of White Fragility. I highly recommend reading his article in full. He concluded his critique by saying, "White Fragility is, in the end, a book about how to make certain educated white readers feel better about themselves. DiAngelo’s outlook rests upon a depiction of Black people as endlessly delicate poster children within this self-gratifying fantasy about how white America needs to think—or, better, stop thinking. Her answer to white fragility, in other words, entails an elaborate and pitilessly dehumanizing condescension toward Black people. The sad truth is that anyone falling under the sway of this blinkered, self-satisfied, punitive stunt of a primer has been taught, by a well-intentioned but tragically misguided pastor, how to be racist in a whole new way."
Those are the thoughts of critical thinking, educated black men.
At this point, I believe the most important thing for me to do (as Yancey & McWhorter have done) is to address & confront the overall implications of the book & the flaws in this ideology.
Let's start with scripture. And let's start at the beginning.
In the Garden of Eden, sin came into the world. As a result, when I entered into this world through my mother's womb, sin was inevitably going to be in my veins. In fact, more than my veins, it was going to seize the throne of my heart. Yours as well. And this had nothing to do with the color of my skin. That dose of melanin, however great or small it was, sadly had no effect on the condition of my heart. We are all created in the image of God. We are all knit together in our mother's womb by our Creator. We all enter this world with a heart bent toward our own exaltation. We are all dead in our sin. But thankfully, there is one who has rectified the situation, restored the beauty, & reconciled our relationships - to our heavenly Father & to one another. His name is Jesus.
In Romans 5, the Apostle Paul gives us this brilliant parallel between how death & sin entered the world through one man (Adam), but life & salvation came from the other man (Jesus). "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men."
One trespass. That's all it took. Sin. Death.
One act of righteousness. That's all it took. Forgiveness. Reconciliation.
If you claim to be a Christ-follower, you have to come to the reckoning of whether or not you believe that "by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works...."
I've been asked: How is Critical Race Theory antithetical to the gospel? How are the ideas presented in White Fragility at odds with the gospel? Well, remember: While Jesus saved us from sin, death, & separation from the Father, he also saved us to life, holiness, reconciliation, & good works. The whole ideology presented in White Fragility says there are good works that I can only find & figure out through being enlightened or woke. In other words, no - White Fragility is not trying to replace what I've been saved from, but it is most certainly altering what I've been saved to. Also, if it's a system that's the source or cause of something like racism, this (in effect & to a degree) let's me off the hook for my own individual responsibility. It's no longer about my sin, it's about the system. That is antithetical to the gospel.
You have to decide whether or not you believe:
"God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another." (1 Corinthians 12:24b-25)
Did I erase those divisions? No. Jesus did.
Do I have to personally walk in this truth & work to tear anything down that would try & rebuild those walls of hostility? Absolutely.
That begins with my own sin. That's the starting point. White Fragility says otherwise.
As a Christ-follower, I have to determine whether or not I believe:
"Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male & female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:25-28)
"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit." (Ephesians 2:13-22)
So how does all of this have any relevance to the subject & how is it that White Fragility is in any way in conflict with the Word of God?
To put it simply, it distracts & leads us away from the true SOURCE of the problem, & therefore, continues on in pointing us to the wrong SOLUTIONS to the problem.
As I said in my post entitled, The Gospel & Racial Reconciliation: "We have to be clear about this: SIN is the source of racism. SIN is the source of abuse. SIN is the source of entitlement. And SIN is the source of the spirit that attempts to cover over these things as well."
I challenge you to take all of this into account & prayerfully consider: How is this not antithetical to the work of the gospel?
Allow me to pose another question: What does White Fragility accomplish, defeat, or address that is not accomplished, defeated, or overcome through the power of Jesus Christ working in & through the lives of His people, through the power of His Spirit, & upon the truth of His Word? Where is the gospel lacking or insufficient?
Friends, this book (& the ideas within it) are possibly the greatest conglomeration of cultish nonsense I have read in quite some time. I believe it is condescending & insulting to black people, defeating & degrading for white people, & not only does nothing to repair the harm of racism, it actually ties our hands behind our backs & leaves us all with no hope that things can be made right, rectified, or restored. It's a sinking ship. Do not get on board!
